DPI 2X

Guys,
I was reading about this in the other post and it was confusing read through there. The first of the 2 DPI is signal (33) and the second is USC (27). Is that correct?

So, if we called this penalty on B21 and he already had one USC, he would then be ejected?

Thoughts?

[MJT]

Originally posted by tpaul
Guys,
I was reading about this in the other post and it was confusing read through there. The first of the 2 DPI is signal (33) and the second is USC (27). Is that correct?

So, if we called this penalty on B21 and he already had one USC, he would then be ejected?

Thoughts?

According to the NF penalty summary, the 2nd DPI is USC foul, signal 27.

I think he would be ejected if that was his 2nd. I do not see anything that would state otherwise.

[grantsrc]

Are you asking if B21 committed an intentional DPI, after he has already committed a separate USC on a different play, would he be ejected?

The only thing I am seeing in Federation rules referring to disqualification is for non-contact unsportsmanlike fouls, rule 9-5. As for intentional PI, the only place that is addressed is in 7-5 Pen and table 7-5. The 2004 rule book doesn't say that IPI is considered unsportsmanlike conduct, but it does say that you give the signal for USC. It also says that if a player commits IPI, "his team shall be penalized an additional 15 yards." So would that mean that the coach would bear the responsibility for said USC? Or would the offending player be responsible? Would IPI be lumped with the other noncontact USC penalties, even thought contact was involved?

I am not sure how this would be interpreted. Excellent question though. I may withhold my ruling to see what some of the others feel. A cop-out I know, but want to see if I am thinking along the same lines as others.

[jfurdell]

Since the rulebook doesn't say intentional pass interference counts as a USC, I'm not counting it as one, despite the signal. Seems to me like the book should specify a personal foul signal instead, anyway.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by jfurdell
Since the rulebook doesn't say intentional pass interference counts as a USC, I'm not counting it as one, despite the signal. Seems to me like the book should specify a personal foul signal instead, anyway.

As stated in a previous thread it would be contradictory to other rules if it were a personal foul signal.

It makes sense to me that it is USC, I personally would signal it as that but I would not charge it to anyone. But that's just me.

[MJT]

Originally posted by jfurdell
Since the rulebook doesn't say intentional pass interference counts as a USC, I'm not counting it as one, despite the signal. Seems to me like the book should specify a personal foul signal instead, anyway.

This was discussed in a previous question and the reason it must be an USC foul is cuz otherwise it would result in a multiple foul situation and only one foul could be enforced. Having it be USC, it is enforced from the succeeding spot, giving us the "extra" 15 yards. That being the case, the contact part caused the original DPI, and the IPI was the "noncontact intent" which made it intentional.

This USC would have to be given to the player, not the coach, so he would have to be ejected by rule. Now, I still think this is mute point cuz I have asked every time the IPI comes up in a post, and no one has called it, or even seen it called before.

Snake-eyes, what are you going to say to the coach when you do not eject player #24, when he sees the USC signal on #24, and knows #24 already had a USC?

[Edited by MJT on Jul 8th, 2005 at 12:23 AM]

Originally posted by MJT

This was discussed in a previous question and the reason it must be an USC foul is cuz otherwise it would result in a multiple foul situation and only one foul could be enforced. Having it be USC, it is enforced from the succeeding spot, giving us the "extra" 15 yards. That being the case, the contact part caused the original DPI, and the IPI was the "noncontact intent" which made it intentional.

This USC would have to be given to the player, not the coach, so he would have to be ejected by rule. Now, I still think this is mute point cuz I have asked every time the IPI comes up in a post, and no one has called it, or even seen it called before.

Snake-eyes, what are you going to say to the coach when you do not eject player #24, when he sees the USC signal on #24, and knows #24 already had a USC?

MJT,
ALL GREAT POINTS! I agree with you 100% After reading the other thread it gave the question that I posted. I since went through the rulebook and you have a dead ringer on this one. Also I never really thought about it much but I have seen it called once at the end of a game where it was clear the last play of the game the DB killed the WR before the ball got there. The penalty did not help on the untimed down the pass was incomplete...

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by MJT

This was discussed in a previous question and the reason it must be an USC foul is cuz otherwise it would result in a multiple foul situation and only one foul could be enforced. Having it be USC, it is enforced from the succeeding spot, giving us the "extra" 15 yards. That being the case, the contact part caused the original DPI, and the IPI was the "noncontact intent" which made it intentional.

This USC would have to be given to the player, not the coach, so he would have to be ejected by rule. Now, I still think this is mute point cuz I have asked every time the IPI comes up in a post, and no one has called it, or even seen it called before.

Snake-eyes, what are you going to say to the coach when you do not eject player #24, when he sees the USC signal on #24, and knows #24 already had a USC?

MJT, you bring up a good point, maybe I would charge him a USC. But that's a tough one.

[golfnref]

I respectfully disagree with the notion that intentional
pass interference would count as one of the disqualifying USC fouls. Unsportsmanship fouls carrying disqualification for the second are listed in Rule 9-5 and 9-8. The penalty notation at the end of each of these rules state a second one of the listed fouls would result in disqualification. No where in these two rules is intentional pass interference listed.
Also, in the penalty summary section of the rule book it lists disqualification associated with certain 15-yard penalties. One of the six situations is " a second unsportsmanlike foul by player or nonplayer". Again the rule references are 9-5 and 9-8.
It is unfortunate that the rules gurus chose to use signal 27 for IPI. I cannot in good conscience eject a player unless he has committed two of the fouls in 9-5 and/or 9-8.

If you can read this, thank a teacher, and since it is in English, thank a Marine

[MJT]

Originally posted by golfnref
I respectfully disagree with the notion that intentional
pass interference would count as one of the disqualifying USC fouls. Unsportsmanship fouls carrying disqualification for the second are listed in Rule 9-5 and 9-8. The penalty notation at the end of each of these rules state a second one of the listed fouls would result in disqualification. No where in these two rules is intentional pass interference listed.
Also, in the penalty summary section of the rule book it lists disqualification associated with certain 15-yard penalties. One of the six situations is " a second unsportsmanlike foul by player or nonplayer". Again the rule references are 9-5 and 9-8.
It is unfortunate that the rules gurus chose to use signal 27 for IPI. I cannot in good conscience eject a player unless he has committed two of the fouls in 9-5 and/or 9-8.

If you can read this, thank a teacher, and since it is in English, thank a Marine

But, if you read at the top of 9-5-1 and 9-8-1, it says "Examples are, but not limited to:" The list is 9-5-1, and 9-8-1 are some examples, but not all possibilities. Therefore when it says a 2nd USC means DQ, then I don't see any other choice.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MJT

[i]But, if you read at the top of 9-5-1 and 9-8-1, it says "Examples are, but not limited to:" The list is 9-5-1, and 9-8-1 are some examples, but not all possibilities. Therefore when it says a 2nd USC means DQ, then I don't see any other choice.

MJT,
You beat me to it! I was going to post that!

[Mark Dexter]

I think MJT has a pretty good argument (regarding the opposing coach), but I don't think this makes an intentional PI into a USC.

While the signal may be the same, I can't find anything in 7-5 to indicate that this is treated as a USC penalty. I realize that, under normal circumstances, you can only enforce one live-ball penalty by a team, but I would read the intentional PI rule as an exception, not as requiring the second 15 yards to be charged as a USC.

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I think MJT has a pretty good argument (regarding the opposing coach), but I don't think this makes an intentional PI into a USC.

While the signal may be the same, I can't find anything in 7-5 to indicate that this is treated as a USC penalty. I realize that, under normal circumstances, you can only enforce one live-ball penalty by a team, but I would read the intentional PI rule as an exception, not as requiring the second 15 yards to be charged as a USC.

Mark,
If that was true wouldn't there be a listing in rule 10 for special enforcement? Just a thought...?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by tpaul

Mark,
If that was true wouldn't there be a listing in rule 10 for special enforcement? Just a thought...?

Point well taken.

I think it's just not clear either way. If it is intended to count as a USC foul, one sentence could be added to the rulebook. The same could be done if the USC signal is just a convenient signal.

While it certainly seems reasonable that this counts as a USC, I will not eject a kid based on just a signal without some guidance from the NF or my assignor (meaning I may ask about this during meetings this fall).

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Point well taken.

I think it's just not clear either way. If it is intended to count as a USC foul, one sentence could be added to the rulebook. The same could be done if the USC signal is just a convenient signal.

While it certainly seems reasonable that this counts as a USC, I will not eject a kid based on just a signal without some guidance from the NF or my assignor (meaning I may ask about this during meetings this fall). [/B]

agreed!